R. v. J.J.R.D. (2006), 218 O.A.C. 37 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2006] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.003
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. J.J.R.D. (appellant)
(C44774)
Indexed As: R. v. J.J.R.D.
Ontario Court of Appeal
Doherty, MacPherson and Rouleau, JJ.A.
November 30, 2006.
Summary:
The accused appealed his conviction for sexual assault on his young daughter.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Editor’s note: certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book’s editorial policy or otherwise.
Courts – Topic 583
Judges – Duties – Re reasons for decisions – The accused appealed from his conviction for sexual assault on his young daughter – The accused submitted that the reasons of the trial judge were inadequate in that they did not offer any explanation for the total rejection of the accused’s exculpatory evidence – He contended that where the Crown’s evidence was not overwhelming and the accused’s evidence was not obviously unreliable, the trial judge’s failure to give any reason for rejecting the accused’s evidence constituted an error in law or a miscarriage of justice and necessitated a new trial – The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal – The real question where an appeal was based on the alleged inadequacy of the reasons was whether those reasons permitted effective appellate review of the verdict – The reasons of the trial judge demonstrated a careful consideration of the entirety of the evidence, an appreciation of the potential weaknesses in the evidence of the complainant, an understanding of the position of the defence and the accused’s evidence, and a proper application of the relevant legal principles, especially the reasonable doubt standard – The trial judge’s reasons permitted effective appellate review and revealed the path the trial judge followed to conviction.
Criminal Law – Topic 4684
Procedure – Judgments and reasons for judgment – Reasons for judgment – Sufficiency of – [See
Courts – Topic 583
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397, refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 298, refd to. [para. 27].
R. v. Braich (A.) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903; 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 324, refd to. [para. 27].
R. v. Strong (J.), [2001] O.A.C. Uned. 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para 27].
R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Gagnon (L.) (2006), 347 N.R. 355; 207 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Maharaj (Y.) (2004), 187 O.A.C. 101; 186 C.C.C.(3d) 247 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 334 N.R. 198 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].
R. v. Lagace (G.) (2003), 178 O.A.C. 391; 181 C.C.C.(3d) 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. S.J.D. (2004), 187 O.A.C. 19; 186 C.C.C.(3d) 304 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 334 N.R. 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. R.L. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. A.S. (2002), 159 O.A.C. 89; 165 C.C.C.(3d) 426 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. Tzarfin (M.) (2005), 201 O.A.C. 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].
Counsel:
Richard Posner, for the appellant;
Amanda Rubaszek, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 9, 2006, by Doherty, MacPherson and Rouleau, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Doherty, J.A., on November 30, 2006.
